https://youtu.be/DB90bBL2pxk
I'm with the String Theorist.

curious.

Neither prospects have anything to really say on the likelihood of the existence of a deity (I'm an astrophysicist).

String theory is attractive on some fronts, but the fact that it is experimentally unverifiable is a not-insignificant point in its disfavour.

What does an astrophysicist do for a living? I imagine it would be teaching or research ... are there other possibilities?

You are right, it is mostly research. If at a university, that will include teaching duties too.

Unfortunately for me, personally, I haven't been able to work for some time due to illness.

But basically, that's what we do :)

It sounds like an interesting occupation.

The one science class I really enjoyed as an undergrad was astronomy. Our astronomy professor was more giddy than a school kid when it came to the stars. He made the class fun.

Our class drove out to the desert near Boise to watch Halley's Comet on the horizon when it passed through the inner solar system the last time. We had to get there really early in the morning to set everything up. It won't pass by again until 2061. For most of us, it was a once in a lifetime event.

> It sounds like an interesting occupation.


I think so. Anyone wanting to train as an astrophysicist should be prepared to take it in stages. First thing to do is get the 'physics' bit under your belt first. At the same time, make sure you get a very good grounding in pure maths at the same time. Once that is done, then you can start on the 'astro' bits :)

Luckily for me, I am one of those perverts who actually really *enjoys* mathematics lol.


> The one science class I really enjoyed as an
> undergrad was astronomy. Our astronomy professor
> was more giddy than a school kid when it came to
> the stars. He made the class fun.

I'm glad that you enjoyed astronomy. Astrophysics is a tad different. *Very* broadly speaking, astronomers look and document; astrophysicists take apart and explain.

Actually, a significant number of astrophysicists (including myself) have never actually looked through an (optical) telescope. You are actually more likely to find an astrophysicist deep underground either at an accelerator or a detector installation.

> Our class drove out to the desert near Boise to
> watch Halley's Comet on the horizon when it passed
> through the inner solar system the last time. We
> had to get there really early in the morning to
> set everything up. It won't pass by again until
> 2061. For most of us, it was a once in a lifetime
> event.


I'm glad that you found the experience fulfilling and enjoyable.

I have heard people who witness the Milky Way, the Auroae etc as 'awe inspiring', 'wondrous'. etc. Unfortunately for me, I have Aspergers and the state of 'awe' is not one that is available to me. Kind of like a low-rent Spock lol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2018 01:49PM by quatermass2.

Sending good thoughts your way.
I've been dealing with a medical issue as well, of late. They are so interfering with life.

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sending good thoughts your way.


Thank you. That is very much appreciated.

I hope you enjoy better health, too.

Neil deGrasse Tyson loves to play the "agnostic" card.

I would rather see Matt Dillahunty.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neil deGrasse Tyson loves to play the "agnostic"
> card.
>
> I would rather see Matt Dillahunty.


I'm not that familiar with Dillahunty, but I think Tyson tends to steer clear of controversial topics like Religion vs. Atheism and Race, because he doesn't want to give anybody "Cannon fodder" to use against him in the future to discredit him scientifically, which is what he really cares about.
But like he says, "The moment you conclude, 'God did it', you become worthless to me in the lab because you've given up the search for the real cause" can't be all that bad,

Why am I not surprised.

We dont know enough to know what we dont know.

pathfinder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We dont know enough to know what we dont know.

We know enough to know we have to assign a 96% fudge factor, we call "Dark Matter" to the universe in order for our math to work out. If there's no such thing as 'Dark Matter/Energy' we'll just have to throw our hands up in the air and admit we don't know shit from shinola.

Try this for a new perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn1gqxvwN1k

What we do has value and meaning. Everything can't be reduced. Physics can't explain the biosphere.

...and neither one has any evidence of any kind a "god" exists, making the entire exercise logically pointless, largely PR, and little else but another example of philosophical hand-waving.

You do realize they don't know any more about "god" than anyone else just because they do astrophysics or physics, right?
Just checking.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and neither one has any evidence of any kind a
> "god" exists, making the entire exercise logically
> pointless, largely PR, and little else but another
> example of philosophical hand-waving.
>
> You do realize they don't know any more about
> "god" than anyone else just because they do
> astrophysics or physics, right?
> Just checking.

Sounds like you didnt bother listening to a word they said before weighing in.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like you didnt bother listening to a word
> they said before weighing in.

A mistaken assumption.

I don't suppose you'd care to point out where either gave any evidence of any kind for any "god" thing?
'Cause neither did.

My point stands.

It's fun isn't it?

One of the things that religions have gotten right is that god has become a topic of faith not science. Not that there aren't proofs of god. Just that there are no proofs that science can test.

I know that you see divinity in some of the suggested solutions to scientific questions. I would suggest however that you are searching for meaning in the unknown because the known already has meaning.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One of the things that religions have gotten right
> is that god has become a topic of faith not
> science. Not that there aren't proofs of god. Just
> that there are no proofs that science can test.

But...there aren't any "proofs" of any god.
Which is why they are a "topic of faith."
There's no such thing as a "proof that science can't test."
If the scientific method can't test it, it can't be tested.
If it can't be tested, it ain't a "proof."

"Oh, yeah! I dare you to test my faith, which is proof enough for me!!", said every believer whose ego depended on being a believer, circularly speaking!

Two decades ago every goosebump was a proof that my parents were right about Mormonism.

I get what you are saying but I think it a bit obtuse to dismiss the proof of others just because they are not objective.

You'll never convince me that The Count of Monte Cristo isn't the best work of Dumas. Even if others find it long and boring.

Just my two cents.

I doubt we will get hard 'scientific evidence' of God or divine interacting in our lives. People will have to accept or reject the 'anecdotal' evidence that is pervasive. Most of the people that actually experience these things have a pretty good idea of whether they occurred or not.

Based on my experiences, I never could tape any 'telepathic communications' or take a picture of a 'dream, vision, or impression that has come to my mind'. That all proved to be 'true'.

It is always interesting to get 'debates' when no one appeared to cite any 'personal experiences' of God or divine (spirit guide) intervention.

Just to clarify one point. We are 'eternal' and the purpose of our current earth life is to gain experiences that we cannot experience in spirit without a body. Will people die, kill, starve, suffer, etc. etc. ---- of course they will they wanted to 'experience' that as part of their current earth life. However, since we are 'eternal' what is a few minutes, hours, days, years, etc. of suffering to some unmeasurable extent, etc. compared to 'eternal'?

Why then are some people, like me 'warned of danger'? Because we were not to experience that during this life time so if it looks like 'shit' will occur that we didn't sign up for we get warned of it so it won't affect us.

I have a number of friends that have experienced warnings. Some to avoid traffic accidents and danger, others to avoid 'school abductions' which actually 'occurred' but didn't directly involve their children or themselves after heeding the warnings!

It should be fairly obvious that God allows bad things to happen to many yet some are warned of danger. It is part of the persons life 'plan' but not the lds 'plan of salvation'.

My 2 cents ---- based on 'experience'!

spiritist writes:

"We are 'eternal' and the purpose of our current earth life is to gain experiences that we cannot experience in spirit without a body."

That is a statement of Mormon doctrine. Can you refer us to any other religion that teaches that gaining "experiences that we cannot experience in spirit without a body" is the "purpose" of our existence?

Good try ---- Jump right to 'corrupt man made religions' ----- do I need to say more???? Why do you feel it is important to look to 'religions' to find truth???? That is similar to an atheist trying to argue against God by making up their own definition of God as in the video.

Fact is 'truth' is not a religion or 'science' would be a religion!

Read Journey of Souls by Newton ----- from the Hypnotic Regression community. Delorous Cannon also from this community has written like 14 books.

Read Answers about the Afterlife by Olson ----- from the psychic, channel and medium communities. This is the best summary I can find from those communities.

If 'experience of a body' is the only thing you get from Mormonism without all the 'ordinances' I think you missed the idea of Mormonism! We are also learning from life along with death and suffering a lot more lessons than just death and suffering!

Good luck!

You missed my point.

I'm wondering why, if you are such a brilliant and liberated soul, you are still making assumptions based in LDS doctrine.

I guess you can take the spiritist out of Mormonism, but you can't take the Mormonism out of spiritist.

>>Can you refer us to any other religion that teaches that gaining "experiences that we cannot experience in spirit without a body" is the "purpose" of our existence?

Spiritualism, definitely. Possibly Buddhism and/or Hinduism.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt we will get hard 'scientific evidence' of
> God or divine interacting in our lives.

Why? If something actually occurs, why can't it be verified that it does?

> People
> will have to accept or reject the 'anecdotal'
> evidence that is pervasive. Most of the people
> that actually experience these things have a
> pretty good idea of whether they occurred or not.

No, actually, they don't -- and that's the biggest problem with the "anecdotal" evidence. In fact, "most of the people that actually experience these things" make numerous unsupportable assumptions, and never even consider any of the possible "sources" of their "experiences." The "experiences" MIGHT be some kind of interaction with something supernatural. They also MIGHT be entirely in-brain "experiences." They MIGHT be complete coincidence, or confirmation bias, or hundreds of other things (or combinations of things). Rarely, if ever, are they qualified as such, though -- they're assumed (without evidence) to come from a supernatural source. Such assumptions are untested, unwarranted, and unverifiable, making them worthless as "evidence."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spiritist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I doubt we will get hard 'scientific evidence'
> of
> > God or divine interacting in our lives.
>
> Why? If something actually occurs, why can't it
> be verified that it does?

Comment: How many thousands of years have we been here and have not got 'scientific' evidence yet. I believe history is a good indicator of the future. However, I agree I will not say it is impossible.
>
> > People
> > will have to accept or reject the 'anecdotal'
> > evidence that is pervasive. Most of the people
> > that actually experience these things have a
> > pretty good idea of whether they occurred or
> not.
>
> No, actually, they don't -- and that's the biggest
> problem with the "anecdotal" evidence. In fact,
> "most of the people that actually experience these
> things" make numerous unsupportable assumptions,
> and never even consider any of the possible
> "sources" of their "experiences." The
> "experiences" MIGHT be some kind of interaction
> with something supernatural. They also MIGHT be
> entirely in-brain "experiences." They MIGHT be
> complete coincidence, or confirmation bias, or
> hundreds of other things (or combinations of
> things). Rarely, if ever, are they qualified as
> such, though -- they're assumed (without evidence)
> to come from a supernatural source. Such
> assumptions are untested, unwarranted, and
> unverifiable, making them worthless as "evidence."

Comment: They might be this or that!!!! Exactly what we were talking about before, That is why I try to encourage people to study these areas for themselves. I have encouraged my siblings and people around me and most got 'experiences' however, they quickly discovered telling others is not always a great idea. My sister had a 'life saving experience' but after she told a few friends and got negative reactions she is much more inclined to keep that side of her life private now!

As far as anecdotal evidence is 'worthless' ----- tell that to any judge, attorney or jury involved in a case where they only have 'eye witnesses' and no other evidence.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comment: How many thousands of years have we been
> here and have not got 'scientific' evidence yet.
> I believe history is a good indicator of the
> future. However, I agree I will not say it is
> impossible.

OK. But, see I can think of two possible reasons for that (I'm sure there are more as well):
1. Getting such evidence isn't possible
2. The thing(s) that is claimed doesn't exist to produce any evidence.

Of the two, which is more likely?
(hint: it's not #1)


> Comment: They might be this or that!!!! Exactly
> what we were talking about before, That is why I
> try to encourage people to study these areas for
> themselves.

"Study" won't provide evidence to demonstrate what they are. Ever. "Study" might convince someone that their assumptions are a certain thing, but that's still an assumption.

You missed the point :)

> As far as anecdotal evidence is 'worthless' -----
> tell that to any judge, attorney or jury involved
> in a case where they only have 'eye witnesses' and
> no other evidence.

"Eyewitness" evidence in a court isn't "anecdotal" evidence. "Eyewitness" evidence in a court also can't contain ANY assumptions -- like the anecdotal evidence you're so fond of. In a court, a witness can say, "I saw him come out of the building." A witness CAN'T say "I saw him come out of the building, after he robbed the place!" if they only saw him come out of the building, and didn't see him rob the place. That would be an assumption, and wouldn't be allowed.

Finally, "eyewitness evidence" even under the allowed rules is considered the LEAST RELIABLE form of evidence at trial. For good, factually-backed reasons.

Before you talk about what to tell judges or juries, you might want to learn the rules of evidence (for trials).

"Eyewitness" evidence in a court isn't "anecdotal" evidence.

COMMENT: Yes it is. Both eyewitness testimony in court and anecdotal "evidence" of paranormal experiences are based upon a single person's subjective experiences. As such, in law a person's subjective experience is valued and acceptable as evidence, if otherwise competent and relevant.
_________________________________________

"Eyewitness" evidence in a court also can't contain ANY assumptions -- like the anecdotal evidence you're so fond of. In a court, a witness can say, "I saw him come out of the building." A witness CAN'T say "I saw him come out of the building, after he robbed the place!" if they only saw him come out of the building, and didn't see him rob the place. That would be an assumption, and wouldn't be allowed.

COMMENT: It cannot contain assumptions as to ultimate facts, as in your example, who "robbed the place." However, all eyewitness testimony includes a basic assumption that one's experience reflects reality, however fallible human experience might be. (Science makes the same assumption.) Moreover, in identifying a person, one assumes certain characteristics associated with that person that results in an intuitive connection. In cross-examination, the witness faces scrutiny about such assumptions.
_______________________________________________

Finally, "eyewitness evidence" even under the allowed rules is considered the LEAST RELIABLE form of evidence at trial. For good, factually-backed reasons.

COMMENT: Not necessarily. What if you had numerous eyewitnesses that each testified as to the same essential factual experience; for example the identification of the robber; as opposed, for example, to a single document (e.g. an email) claiming that the suspect was in another country at the relevant time period. The reliability of evidence depends upon a host of factors, such that you cannot make the blanket statement you make here. For example, as cumulative eyewitness testimony mounts, the credibility of other evidence that might otherwise seem compelling can become suspect. So, it is not as simple as you state here.

Moreover, the same principle is true with paranormal reports, e.g. NDAs. The fact that such reports are voluminous, and somewhat consistent, weighs in favor of their credibility, notwithstanding isolated claims of fraud, or vague and unsubstantiated ad hoc "scientific" explanations. Moreover, such reports are, to some extent, subject to scrutiny through consistency, witness credibility, and context, just as with legal testimony. In short, spiritist's point about anecdotal evidence was a fair one.
________________________________________

Before you talk about what to tell judges or juries, you might want to learn the rules of evidence (for trials).

COMMENT: Is 30 years as a trial lawyer enough for you?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Is 30 years as a trial lawyer enough for
> you?

That wasn't directed at you.

"Moreover, the same principle is true with paranormal reports, e.g. NDAs. The fact that such reports are voluminous, and somewhat consistent, weighs in favor of their credibility, notwithstanding isolated claims of fraud, or vague and unsubstantiated ad hoc "scientific" explanations. Moreover, such reports are, to some extent, subject to scrutiny through consistency, witness credibility, and context, just as with legal testimony. In short, spiritist's point about anecdotal evidence was a fair one."

Nope.
First, "somewhat consistent" is a gross overstatement. They're no such thing.
Second, even if they were *entirely* consistent, that would offer no clue whatsoever to their "source" -- brain, hallucination, mistaken perception, supernatural source, whatever. The simple fact is NOBODY knows the "source." So assuming one ("paranormal") is fallacy and unreasonable right from the get-go. No matter how consistent or not.

In court-acceptable "eyewitness testimony" we DO know the source -- light hitting peoples' eyeballs from the observable world. Attorneys can argue all day long (and they do) about whether or not the witness recollection of what they saw is reliable (and it often isn't, no matter how many witnesses there are), they can argue about lighting conditions or eyesight or any number of other things, but the "source" is known. Which isn't the case with claimed "paranormal" anecdotes, and is the fundamental difference.

As a 30 year trial lawyer, you should already know that someone trying to testify in court that "I saw a spirit" would be tossed. That person could testify that they saw "something," but any competent attorney would establish in 30 seconds that they don't know it was a "spirit," they don't know if it was an optical illusion or mistaken perception or anything else, so they can't testify they saw a "spirit."

Which brings up the final point: the "voluminous" anecdotes about "paranormal experiences" are evidence that people have experiences -- of an unknown type and source. They are NOT evidence that the "experiences" are "paranormal," or "spiritual," or "supernatural," or anything else.

As I've pointed out over and over (and it's entirely valid) -- the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

How many thousands/millions of people have told their children that "Santa" exists. Is it truer when the 55,000th person says it? A lie is a lie no matter how often its repeated.

Credibility of the witness helps, but does not belie the fact that highly skilled people can be dead wrong, and that ignorant folks can be absolutely correct on things. But, we end up knowing which is which by validating through evidence and reasoned analysis.

HH =)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Eyewitness" evidence in a court isn't "anecdotal"
> evidence.
>
> COMMENT: Yes it is. Both eyewitness testimony in
> court and anecdotal "evidence" of paranormal
> experiences are based upon a single person's
> subjective experiences. As such, in law a person's
> subjective experience is valued and acceptable as
> evidence, if otherwise competent and relevant.
> _________________________________________

It isn't an IS acceptable it is MIGHT BE acceptable.

There are many issues as to the reliability of the witness, the topic of said testimony and so on. To further expand on hie's comments regarding what they saw being a spirit and so forth, there is no standard for identifying when the experience is valid, invalid or what it even was.

This is the same problem with the LDS testimony. Sure, the person had an experience but there must be a basis for claiming particular meanings. As with the religious testimony, to say that one is true is to say they all are equally true and valid even when they contradict react each other. Which is clearly false.

That a person had an experience doesn't mean their interpretation of it is factual or that it has a single specific meaning.

This is the limit on such testimony. The witness is not an authority to make such interpretations and meanings as there is no basis for determining such interpretation or meaning. It's simply cultural inculcated bias, not fact.

> COMMENT: Is 30 years as a trial lawyer enough for
> you?

No. Not when the argument is so clearly flawed.

People who have an NDA experience often claim to see people they know who have passed on. They've been culturally programmed to expect this. Except children who see people who are alive because they don't know anyone who's dead and haven't picked up enough acculturation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 03:16PM by dogblogger.

"It isn't an IS acceptable it is MIGHT BE acceptable."

COMMENT: Yes, as I said, the oral testimony of a witness must be relevant and "competent" which implies compliance with several legal standards. The point is that ALL such testimony represents a subjective report of one's experience.
___________________________________________

"There are many issues as to the reliability of the witness, the topic of said testimony and so on. To further expand on hie's comments regarding what they saw being a spirit and so forth, there is no standard for identifying when the experience is valid, invalid or what it even was."

COMMENT: You are confused. A report of an experience, whether in the form of legal testimony or a paranormal event, is just an account of what happened; i.e. what was experienced. What the experience "means" or how it is interpreted is a separate analysis. That said, even though the interpretation of the experience may be controversial, the experience itself (if reported accurately and honestly) has at least potential evidential value to those (judge, jury, society, etc.) who are interested in finding out about the world, or an event in it.
____________________________________________

"This is the same problem with the LDS testimony. Sure, the person had an experience but there must be a basis for claiming particular meanings. As with the religious testimony, to say that one is true is to say they all are equally true and valid even when they contradict react each other. Which is clearly false."

COMMENT: Like any evidence, a subjective experience is subject to interpretation, which includes the credibility of the witness, the credibility of the content of the experience, and the possible source or basis for the experience. But, again, the fact that such things may be controversial and disputed, does not mean that the experience should per se be swept under the rug as "invalid." This is true in both the legal setting as well as in worldview formation. In the legal setting, attorneys will argue about the competency of such testimony, but in close cases the judge will most often allow the testimony while leaving it up to the jury to decide its ultimate meaning or validity to the issue at hand.
__________________________________________________

"That a person had an experience doesn't mean their interpretation of it is factual or that it has a single specific meaning."

COMMENT: Again, the experiential report is subject to interpretation, which may be controversial. What its "true" meaning is, if there is such a thing, is debatable.
___________________________________________________

"This is the limit on such testimony. The witness is not an authority to make such interpretations and meanings as there is no basis for determining such interpretation or meaning. It's simply cultural inculcated bias, not fact."

COMMENT: This is just false. Even in the legal context a witness often is allowed to opine as to what he or she thinks the meaning is of what he or she saw. For example, such a witness may report a facial expression or action, and testify that the subject *appeared* to be in a particular emotional state. In a very important sense, the experiencer is often the best person to provide the interpretation of what was experienced. Cultural bias, if applicable in some sense, would be a matter of cross-examination. Remember, that all of this is subject to rather vague and general legal principles of evidence which to a large extent is within the discretion of the judge to decide what would be appropriate.
__________________________________________

> COMMENT: Is 30 years as a trial lawyer enough for
> you?

No. Not when the argument is so clearly flawed.

COMMENT: Yeh, right. I do not know what I am talking about, and you do. This is what amazes me. No matter what I say, if it does not fit into the reader's favored worldview it must be rejected. Facts, logic and reason, and now authoritative experience, notwithstanding. What does this remind you of?
___________________________________________

"People who have an NDA experience often claim to see people they know who have passed on. They've been culturally programmed to expect this. Except children who see people who are alive because they don't know anyone who's dead and haven't picked up enough acculturation."

COMMENT: This is so overly simplistic as to be laughable. Read the literature.

spiritist Wrote: discussing 'paranormal' validation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comment: How many thousands of years have we been
> here and have not got 'scientific' evidence yet.
> I believe history is a good indicator of the
> future. However, I agree I will not say it is
> impossible.

OK. But, see I can think of two possible reasons for that (I'm sure there are more as well):
1. Getting such evidence isn't possible
2. The thing(s) that is claimed doesn't exist to produce any evidence.

Of the two, which is more likely?
(hint: it's not #1)
__________________________________________________________

Looks like we were both somewhat wrong about providing 'statistical evidence'(not sure yet that 'science' will accept it) supporting the psychic/intuitive ability to remote view. Even though proven statistically, science still cannot explain how it is possible!!! Maybe this is 'one reason' this proven ability is not discussed much in main stream media or in many scientific journals.

However, when the US government directly hired psychics for almost 20 years to use in spy projects a lot of the data concerning their accuracy and the projects were classified.

Recently a lot of information has become 'unclassified' and the 'statistical accuracy' of this unexplainable ability is more available to the public. Here is a 'PHD statistician' that studied the results of the Government remote viewing program indicated the probability of RV accuracy tested was just luck or guessing was 1 in 10 billion!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU Around 7:30 mark.

For perspective, see:

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality

Note that Hyman concludes his skeptical assessment of Jessica Uttman Utts' claims by the following comment:

"Because even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome — the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet."

I find this rather curious. In short, no amount of data will convince Hyman of the reality of ESP, simply because of the possibility of unknown normal influences. Such a position is reminiscent of Einstein's objection to the data of QM, when he argued for "hidden variables." Even now, many physicists insist on this, and for good reason!

Another common objection to ESP is the lack of a viable theory that is consistent with the accepted scientific theories of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. The theoretical physicist, Martin Gardner once objected to a paranormal theory that proposed that the basis of ESP was an unknown subatomic particle called the "psychon" stating: "this is just inventing a new particle to explain a force that nobody understands--and that may not exist in the first place." Such an objection flies in the face of the history of physics where particles were routinely proposed as explanations for phenomena without any evidence for their existence. Presently string theorists do precisely the same thing, with their energy "strings."

In short, in my opinion, parapsychologists are too quick to assign validity to their "data," while skeptics are too rigid and uncompromising in rejecting such data on "established" scientific grounds that cannot theoretically accommodate such data.

It reminds me of people on this Board. They demand authoritative information, but then when you provide it to them, it is clear that what they really want is validation.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like we were both somewhat wrong about
> providing 'statistical evidence'(not sure yet that
> 'science' will accept it) supporting the
> psychic/intuitive ability to remote view.

You might have been, I wasn't. :)

> Even
> though proven statistically, science still cannot
> explain how it is possible!!!

It hasn't been "proven statistically."
See, that's where you're wrong.

> Maybe this is 'one
> reason' this proven ability is not discussed much
> in main stream media or in many scientific
> journals.

Um, no. It's not discussed at all in "scientific journals" because it's NOT a "proven ability." It is, in fact, just the opposite.

> However, when the US government directly hired
> psychics for almost 20 years to use in spy
> projects a lot of the data concerning their
> accuracy and the projects were classified.

Yes, some idiots mistakenly thought the Russkies were 'beating us' in 'psychic warfare,' and so convinced the government to pay for such things. And yes, it took 20 years to cancel the whole thing, after a scientific panel finally looked at all they had done and concluded it was entirely worthless.

> Recently a lot of information has become
> 'unclassified' and the 'statistical accuracy' of
> this unexplainable ability is more available to
> the public. Here is a 'PHD statistician' that
> studied the results of the Government remote
> viewing program indicated the probability of RV
> accuracy tested was just luck or guessing was 1 in
> 10 billion!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU
> Around 7:30 mark.

I'd make some comment about gullibility, but I don't think it would do any good.

Instead, I'll just add this:

"In 1995, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) appointed a panel consisting primarily of Utts and Ray Hyman to evaluate a project investigating remote viewing for espionage applications, the Stargate Project,[6] which was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, and carried out initially by Stanford Research Institute and subsequently by SAIC.

A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated. According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating." Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued. Jessica Utts also co-authored papers with the parapsychologist Edwin May, who took over Stargate in 1985. The psychologist David Marks noted that as Utts has published papers with May "she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation.""

What a surprise! Someone who already believed in parapsychology and remote viewing claimed the statistics showed it worked!

Never mind that her statistics were flawed (as Hyman and Marks clearly showed), and that her appointment as a "believer" was problematic. And that even if her "report" hadn't been flawed, nobody anywhere has ever been able to replicate any of the "Stargate" remote-viewing results (which isn't at all surprising, given the flaws in THAT group's methods and reporting...).

But then, all we have to do is notice one thing:

"Utts is on the executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA)."

Yeah, so it's like hiring a mormon apologist to "research" mormon history. Guess what the results will be?

Now, if you'd like to read an honest, objective assessment, try this one:

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality

I think Utts work shows far more 'scholarship' than Hymans and Marks totally unsupported 'statements'!!!! Actual study available here would be nice they worked for the government for almost 20 years ----- where was Hymans then????

You know that Hymans is a 'psychology professor' from the well know research school of the University of Oregon, don't you. Not a 'real scientist' who appears to do any actual 'research' using 'scientific/mathematical' techniques, so where is the 'meat' ---- just rhetoric! Looks like he is trying to use non RV psychic data/studies against RV results ---- hardly sounds logical or intelligent ----- unless of course you want to 'appear' to have an argument.

Here is another video on utube on the RV program discussed by a physicist (another professional 'scientist' working side by side of the RVer) and his observations of RV work accuracy. There are many others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBl0cwyn5GY


Utts is a 'believer' ---- Who wouldn't be a 'believer' once they review the work and compute the stats???

The various spy agencies were apparently satisfied for about 20 years then and still hiring 'consultants' who do RV now!

Good try! Maybe next time you can look up some real experts like Al Gore or the 'science guy' to support 'psychics/intuition' is all bunk!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 11:41PM by spiritist.

I think Utts work shows far more 'scholarship' than Hymans and Marks totally unsupported 'statements'!!!! Actual study available here would be nice they worked for the government for almost 20 years ----- where was Hymans then????

COMMENT: Utts' work was based upon statistical analysis, which is obviously only as good as the data used for such analysis, which was the primary basis for Hymans' (and others') criticisms. There is no basis to assume that Utts "scholarship" was in any way superior to that of Hymans. This is ad hominin BS.

Moreover, governmental use of ESP is entirely anecdotal, so they cannot be compared as "studies." In short, you can argue for the validity of statistical evidence of ESP, or the validity of anecdotal evidence, or both, but do not confuse the two. Hymans' criticisms of Utts' statistical work has merit in my view. However, he should further note that such criticisms extend across the board of statistical psychology, and not just in RV or ESP research. This is why anecdotal evidence is far more compelling, even if it cannot be quantified. For reasons I stated above, psychological reports do qualify as evidence in assessing phenomena, just as they do in the legal setting.
_________________________________________________

You know that Hymans is a 'psychology professor' from the well know research school of the University of Oregon, don't you. Not a 'real scientist' who appears to do any actual 'research' using 'scientific/mathematical' techniques, so where is the 'meat' ---- just rhetoric! Looks like he is trying to use non RV psychic data/studies against RV results ---- hardly sounds logical or intelligent ----- unless of course you want to 'appear' to have an argument.

COMMMENT: This is pure BS! You do not have to be an experimenter in order to criticize an experiment, any more than you have to be a politician to criticize political views. Hymans' criticisms are most certainly NOT "just rhetoric." He looks at the data in great detail, including the meta-analysis relied upon by Utts. As he points out, Utts' statistical conclusions are laced with problems related to the data, and meta-data used.
__________________________________________

Here is another video on utube on the RV program discussed by a physicist (another professional 'scientist' working side by side of the RVer) and his observations of RV work accuracy. There are many others.

COMMENT: Videos do not mean a damn thing, for either side.
___________________________________________

Utts is a 'believer' ---- Who wouldn't be a 'believer' once they review the work and compute the stats???

COMMENT: Answer: a lot of people; Obviously! However, the fact that someone is a "believer" or an "unbeliever" is not disqualifying in any way. It just means that both sides need to be concerned about confirmation bias. You find such bias when logical argument and reasoned analysis turns to rhetoric; as with your post here.
___________________________________________

The various spy agencies were apparently satisfied for about 20 years then and still hiring 'consultants' who do RV now!

COMMENT: Again, much of the anecdotal evidence is, in my view, compelling, and worthy of consideration as "evidence" for RV or ESP. But it is not strictly speaking scientific evidence.

For me, the statistical studies do little more than undermine the otherwise compelling anecdotal evidence. The reason is that RV, or ESP, to the extent they exist, are by definition "anomalous experiences," meaning they do not have a significant, compelling, existence across human populations. Attempts to make them statistically relevant takes the debate away from where it belongs; i.e. in objectively credible, isolated reports, where credibility can be argued and debated in the context of such reports, without insisting that somehow such reports carry statistical significance.
____________________________________________________

Good try! Maybe next time you can look up some real experts like Al Gore or the 'science guy' to support 'psychics/intuition' is all bunk!

COMMENT: Hey, this is your fallback: The "real experts" are those who support your point of view, and all the rest are just pseudo-experts. A very common position here on the Board.

(For those interested in a more-less objective treatment of this subject, see Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (2000) published by the American Psychological Association, particularly chapter 7.)

My whole point is we have a PHD Math/statistician putting her 'reputation on the line' coming out with specific conclusions after reviewing a large amount of RV work against the actual locations they were suppose to view and the scores/ratings given those projects.

I believe it is clear the only people capable of 'scoring/rating' the projects were the customers who requested the information in the first place then compared what the RV work produced to what they found out or knew already.

She apparently thought whatever ratings to the RV work given were appropriate. I would evaluate those type of major things if I were to give an overall 'opinion'.

Contrast that with a person without the 'mathematics background' and no obvious 'professional reputation as a researcher or scientist to put on the line' that says "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target". Was that an opinion shared by the actual users of the data ---- I doubt it! Which RV projects in the study were way off?? Were the ratings/scores given appropriate or not??? RV is not perfect and few if any should have been given a 100% rating/score.

So what were this 'psychology professors' 'scores/ratings' on each project?? What was his basis that the scorers didn't appropriately use? Then adjusting the ratings what was the statistical projection then?? Statistically does it prove the RV work was better than just guessing? Again little to no 'scholarship' at all!

My question to his BS is adjusting for those concerns what is the 'statistical position'??? Of course he did not and could not provide that or any examples where the 'ratings/scores' were grossly off ------ just unsupported rhetoric.

Unfortunately, scientists can be bought with a price it is done every day to support political agendas! In fact, I was amazed the government allowed a study in the end as they didn't need any study to make a 'political decision'.

The fact is the government had 'scientists' reviewing this RV work during the total program. Unfortunately, scientists could never identify where this 'rv' information came from and how it was picked up by humans from what I understand.

I do appreciate the input!

I also appreciate the US govt went to hiring 'rv consultants vs hiring directly' otherwise the RV information and people would have been restricted and not allowed for the teaching and promulgating of this information and training to the vast public. We literally have thousands of people trained in RV now that the information is not classified and they use it in government, business, investing, personal life decisions, etc. etc. I would have probably never been exposed to so much 'free training' if this would have been kept undercover by the government.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2018 02:22PM by spiritist.

It doesn't really matter what Utts or Hyman claim. The data is suspect as to completeness nor is there a supportable standard against which to judge it. Nor can we rely on customer claims as the human is predisposed to select hits and ignore misses. Nor do we know that the relevant data was collected. It would require impartial review and a method to determine what was known by whom and when compared against the time stamped RV claims. How preloaded were the requests given to the RV staff.

The one RV staff I have heard interviewed by a sympathetic interviewer on NPR gave very fuzzy answers on the Iran Hostage identity task, talking about how after 6 or so months they had identified most of the hostages. Who had already been identified through other means by that time. Here is an alleged transcript of one of the remote viewing sessions. I have no way to authenticate it. Read it for yourself.

https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP96-00788R000800490001-1

Just to explain how RV really works ----- normally.

The RVer is given 8 numbers (1234/5678) that relate to a tasking in an envelope the RVer is not shown until they have completed their work. The envelope contains the specific tasking completely written out explaining what he/she was actually tasked to do.

The RVer is normally in a room with no distraction so he/she can concentrate on 'subtle information' and goes through a checklist of items/questions to get basic information first then more advanced as the session progresses. RV people usually draw and/or work with clay to mold important things they 'perceived' during the session. They don't know the tasking but are trying to provide information to 'respond' to the tasking.

All RV people, including myself, do tasks individually. However, in order to increase the 'accuracy' multiple viewers are normally given the same task and their input is combined by someone independent of the RV work to get the final results. They normally use data that was reported by multiple viewers and this is the 'final product' to the customer. What you see here is an individual RV and would not 'normally' be the 'final product' to the customer but just data obtained.

As far as I understand, the customer based on 'already known information' (sometimes they just want validation of information they already know) or based on information they eventually 'validate' when someone takes action on the ground the customer can then assess the 'accuracy/usefulness' of the RV data and assign it a 'rating/score'. Some of us recognize the target during our RV session (example I have recognized Old Faithful geyser and then could provide great detail because of my seeing it before) but that would be rare so very few if any, individual projects should get a 100% rating or score. The viewers bonuses, assignments, promotions, etc. are at least partially based on how high they have scored in past projects.

The 'rating/scoring' was accomplished since day 1 as it was important for assignments, bonuses, promotions, etc. to the individual rv persons and to the overall program. To make sure the high priority projects receive the groups 'best effort and best viewers'.

I think it is tough going through an individual project and understanding why these words and pics in this sequence unless you have some experience RVing.

Hope this helps, but I have no intention of going through this project in detail here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2018 12:04AM by spiritist.

SNippets from speeches they gave are just that. A debate requires somone with the ONUS PROPANDI to make thier case. An opposition who provides a counter-case, rebuttals and closings.

Seems more like 2 Physicists offer opinions on gods.

HH =)